/r/Games is for informative and interesting gaming content and discussions. Please look over our rules and FAQ before posting. If you're looking for "lighter" gaming-related entertainment, try /r/gaming!

The goal of /r/Games is to provide a place for informative and interesting gaming content and discussions. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just with the goal of entertaining viewers.

Promotion

Some promotional submitting (posting your own projects, articles, etc.) is permitted, but it must be balanced out by a much greater level of non-promotion participation in reddit - the rule of thumb is no more than 10% of your submissions may be promotional. Do not solicit votes for your posts. For more information, see the self-promotion on reddit FAQ.

If you want to promote without participating in the community, purchase an ad.

Spoilers

Please report posts containing spoilers unless they are hidden using the following method or are inside a thread clearly labeled as containing spoilers.

Thats not the correct answer. There is no direct relation between currency devaluation and exports even when some aficionado economists like to repeat it. F.e. Germany has always had a (relatively) strong currency and they are an export powerhouse. Weve seen episodes of currency devaluation followed by a decrease in exports. While sometimes both happen at the same time, there is NOT a direct relation like some people say, things are a bit more complicated.

What a currency devaluation does is promote the cheap low wage non-technology-intensive industry, since what a currency devaluation does is lower the real wages of workers. Basically you are offering the country labour for cheap, so the low level low wage industry can see an increase. In Europe you have the examples of countries like Spain, Greece or even Italy who have always promoted low wage industry through devaluation to get out of trouble to Germany who tends to take the hit and maintain the currency to promote high skill high wage industry.

The reaction you are seeing in Japan in the whole stock market (not only Nintendo) is because the easy money of the central bank comes in through bank credit and that promotes speculation. So its a no brainer that the Japan stock market is bubbling up. IMO its going to continue doing so for a while so there is money to be made for speculators, but its a bubble and it will come crashing down at some point. The Japanese government is setting the country for a lot of pain.

There is no direct relation between currency devaluation and exports even when some aficionado economists like to repeat it. F.e. Germany has always had a (relatively) strong currency and they are an export powerhouse.

That's not a good argument as currency devaluation = higher exports does not mean that strong currency = lower exports.

A currency devaluation leads to higher exports because of the simple fact that (in the short term) the goods become cheaper to buy from the perspective of other countries.

Of course there are plenty of other factors that influence exports, so yeah, "currency devaluation = higher exports" (e.g. you can export more of something you now make less of) is not some sort of law, but it's not an unreasonable expectation either.

Of course it probably not the only factor in the stock prices going up, but it probably is one of the factors (contribute to how much it went up, especially if you're right about the speculators - don't know much about Japan's economic status).

This is funny, because hardly anyone here seems to know anything about the stock market yet everyone thinks they know why this is happening. Also, Nintendo is actually down over 30% in the last two years...

The fact is, that there are a TON of stocks right now that are seeing rebounds. Nintendo has actually been performing relatively poorly when compared to other indicators (at least until this bump).

The chart below compares Nintendo's stock to the NASDAQ, SP500, and Activision. The volatility in Nintendo's stock is frightening... Would not go near that stock.

Edit: If you also check the 5 yr range you see how terrible Nintendo's performance has been on the market. A crucial tip for any inspiring investors: Do not invest in a company just because you like it or their products

I know you're joking, but there is truth to what you're saying. News and hype can definitely drive the market. This is especially true in the technology sector and also in OTC markets because financial data is so limited there (The SEC does not require OTC stocks to release earnings and other crucial information). The only problem is that these news driven spikes generally reflect irrational bubbles or dips that eventually correct themselves. So if you jump in on a spike, there's a strong risk you are riding the top of a bubble.

They were able to successfully turn the 3DS from a weak spot into their primary source of revenue. Unfortunately, the WiiU is more difficult since they're losing money manufacturing them. Even if it's a small amount, they are unable to drop the price without risking an even bigger loss, and they are dependent on strong sales which haven't materialized yet.

The article is a bit misleading in that it's only showing the slow climb in the stock without mentioning how far it fell right before their graph begins. Here is the last 5 years and the last 10 years.

Clearly, the market expected a lot more from them after the Wii, and they haven't been able to live up to those expectations.

Yeah, this point goes under recognized IMO. The Wii U's underperformance, while not a plus for most investors, isn't as big a minus as people make it out to be. It's barely sells at a loss, and doesnt need much software sold to be profitable. It is not the same as if the PS4 or Xbox 1 were to flop as they, I believe, are going to sell at a much bigger loss than the wii u. Needing more software attachment to make profit. Although, they are just arms of a much bigger business in both Microsoft and Sony, so they can be kept afloat from other areas of the biz.

Correct. The problem with Nintendo losing money on the console isn't the losing money per se, it's the way it limits their options financially. They were able to cut the price of the 3DS by $80, which led to a monumental surge in sales. They can't cut the WiiU's price the same amount because it's too big of a risk. The few places that did limited price cuts (probably an intentional "feeler" from Nintendo) didn't see much uptick in demand. That means that a price cut would likely only hurt them.

It also means that the unsold WiiU's on retailer shelves are hurting them more than they would have otherwise, because there is a lot more money invested in their production.

Nintendo's only real option without taking a huge risk is to wait it out and hope that software eventually convinces people to buy one. They might also be waiting for cost savings in production which would allow a price cut.

I think it was primarily all the great games that led to the sales of the 3DS, although the price cut certainly helped. Keep in mind that Nintendo were able to cut the price in the first place because they thought they could get away with having it be as expensive as it initially was.

Actually, that story was retracted. Follow the link to the source in the IGN blogspam.

"In a story about Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime, Fils-Aime incorrectly said that Nintendo makes a profit on the Wii U console after consumers buy one piece of software. The number is more than one, but the company declined to say the exact number."

Before launch, Nintendo said the Wii U supported up to two tablets and that controllers would be available to buy at retail. A year later, no games support multi-tablet gameplay and controllers are only bundled with the system.

Nintendo said that you can run two if you are ok with shitty performance. So technically they could support two, but the experience wouldn't be very good. The people that would pay an extra $150 for another game pad are the same people that care about the quality of the experience. So I think they are justified in not investing the man hours it would take to support two controllers.

I don't see how Nintendo can keep the audience it had with the wii, and it has definitely lost the majority of its traditional gamers market. There's only so many times you can rehash the same franchises and keep gamers interested (outside of Japan anyway).

It seems like they had two competing ideologies for this console and didn't want to choose. So they went the Microsoft route and tried to do both in one console. They wanted innovative controls to compete with non-consumption and they wanted to be able to produce traditional HD console games.

The problem with this is that the people that are attracted to the tablet controls will just buy an iPad, and the people that want good graphics will spend the extra $50 and buy a PS4. They ended up with an expensive console that doesn't optimise for either of their markets.

If you say so, the wii was just as dated when it came to the Xbox 360 and PS3 and it won in sales, having more than either console combined until they dropped price. With Nintendo it's more about the exclusives and an experience you won't find anywhere else. Plus its only $300 and will comedown in price before all the must haves come out making it more appetizing. For $600 you can build a rig far more powerful than the XBone and PS4, and most of their exclusives are coming to PC as well. IMO Nintendo one E3 console wise and it will show Q3 and Q4 of 2014.

With Nintendo it's more about the exclusives and an experience you won't find anywhere else.

The Wii sold as well as it did because it became a worldwide sensation with WiiSports and all that. I'm not saying Zelda and Mario don't sell well, but they were not what made the Wii popular.

For $600 you can build a rig far more powerful than the XBone and PS4, and most of their exclusives are coming to PC as well.

That may be true, but the majority of people who buy consoles don't care about that. They like consoles, they like how it fits in their living room or bed room, and they don't want to put the effort into making a computer. I love PC gaming, but there are a lot more people out there that would just prefer to plop down on their couch and pick up a controller.

I'm also quite sure the electoral result helped Japanese companies a lot as a whole. Starting today Japan has a stable government with a strong majority again, that helps to instill trust in the markets.

You are discounting the fact that affluent Chinese have a hard-on for buying the full price, official versions of things just to show they can. You can get a grey market, fell-off-the-truck version of virtually anything, especially electronics, but the real things still make up a huge market.

Their consoles have been on sale for a very long time in China, I very much doubt that would make any impact. I live half the time in Guangzhou, the Chinese authorities didn't do anything about grey imports and department stores all have their decent sized console and game sections at comparable pricing.

the marketing was brilliant, nothing flukish about that. They made a console appeal to a demographic that usually doesn't even think about gaming, the wii made my mom interested because of the fun minigames like bowling. Personally I don't consider the Wii a success because of that but Nintendo still released some pretty amazing games for it's era where they seriously stepped it up from the gamecube.

Always be wary when you hear "surge", "fastest growing" or any other adjective describing relative instead of absolute change. Whenever such weasel words are used, it's usually either a non-event or a gross attempt at making something sound more important than it really is.

Why are these people using relative growth instead of absolute one? Because the absolute version will tell a truth they don't want you to know: that their numbers are actually not that great.

The best example of this kind of abuse was hearing things such as "Linux's market share doubled in the past two years" (it went from 1% to 2%) while Windows' only grew 0.1%.

The reality: Linux gained 300,000 users while Windows added 1.5M (I just made these numbers up, just to illustrate my point).

Yeah the issue is that the value of the Japanese Yen has plummeted compared to the US dollar, so when you view the chart in U.S. dollars like the one OP linked to, it isn't at the highest point in two years. But if you view the actual Tokyo Stock Exchange chart, then yes it is at its highest point.

Here is the chart when viewed on the Tokyo exchange over a two year period:

I wonder what would have happened to Nintendo if we never had a Wii and were only being introduced to motion control gaming and their blue ocean strategy right now, post-GFC.

It's clear the Wii was a behemoth because it not only broaden the audience but it came out during an opulent time when owning more than one current gen console had a chance of being the norm. Is that dream of an iDort world dead for now?

"Drooling simpletons" is a bit judgmental don't you think? Other than that, I agree with your point, and would add that even on reddit, the people who change their opinion in an instant are a minority. Most people are pretty entrenched in their opinions and it takes a lot to dissuade them from it.

Simcity is a special case, because it had a huge built in fan base. I'm sure a lot of people pre-ordered that as soon as they heard about it and didn't bother reading reviews at all because they had nothing but faith in the franchise. I'm pretty sure Simcity 5 is going to have to work to get some of those fans back and if they screw 5 up, they could lose a lot of fans for good.

The D3 hate is not quite as large as everyone says. There are plenty, plenty of people that enjoyed the game fine for what it is, but they don't feel the need to go post about it. Besides, Blizzard games are always hated on these days by the more passionate of the gaming community.

I think even looking at game reviews requires a fair amount of a commitment. I'd say a sizable portion of people purchasing games are doing so based soley on advertisement and their will to enjoy something that "sounds cool" so they buy it. I mean, movies fall under the same situation - which is why we see a lot of mindless hollywood junk making zillions of dollars.

As far as Sim City though, I think it may also have set some kind of record for number of PC games refunded. I doubt there are any solid numbers on it, but I think somewhere deep inside the vaults of EA, they have figures on it and it's true. You'd never be able to tell from the outside though.

As someone who has worked in both a games only shop and now directly in the industry, 'drooling simpletons' is a very accurate statement, and is the source for the metaphorical $$$ in Nintendo's eyes as of late.

I also agree with /u/canadarpg, the communities online are a fraction of games consumers. Bare in mind how many communities are you a part of? Many people are subscribed to multiple forums/websites, which gives a false impression that there are a lot of people out there saying they want xyz instead of abc, but it could simply be the same person across those communities saying the same thing, meaning it's 1 guy, not the masses.

The gaming industry though needs investment, and it's that desire to play it safe that is causing a lot of the issues in gaming (turning series into franchises, resistance to original IP & trying to emulate call of duty mechanics)

Stock Market involvement in gaming tends to do more harm than it does good.

Because companies are almost desperate to be invested, their games lose originality, and become, as you said, a "Play-it-safe" more than a bold and original idea. Free to play mechanics are added, DLC costs an unreasonably large amount of money while not offering much itself, and games steal mechanics from more successful games in a desperate attempt to gain large amounts of sales.

Not to mention Nintendo's ridiculously successful handheld dominance. The importance of handhelds is even more influential in Japan as well. He who controls Monster Hunter controls the handheld market.

Well no, but that is because the PSP also sold like shit. Monster Hunter almost single-handedly saved the PSP. Now that Monster Hunter is on a system that actually normally does well, the grip is tighter than my hand on my tiny dick.

Theyre good to invest in if you're in the know of the industry. You can make an easy 10% on those 3 E3 days simply by gauging reaction of the crowd. I wouldn't ever consider to put in money on a long term.

Don't compare it to oil. Compare to similar things: phones, movies, cars, fashion, luxury items. The value of game companies are broken by gamer reactions? That's bullshit. No internet thread will move a speck of dust if customers are opening their wallets at the registers and eshops.

According to this website: EA is the scum of the earth, worst company in america, worst customer service, releases a cripple sequel to a classic like Sim city. So what? 100s of millions are buying EA's battlefield3, top notch sports games, bioware games, etc.

Something like that. It sounds like investors think that Nintendo is going to make the cut and become part of the Nikkei average when that does happen. That would constitute a big vote of confidence for them.

Between wii u and 3ds they have a huge amount if quality first party titles releasing this year alone and they already have a 2014 release list starting so I am not surprised , what Nintendo needs to do now is reveal a epic trailer of the new built from scratch Zelda

Where did you buy or eventually sell? I was looking at it at $17 and was sure there was way more hype than price. I knew I should have bought but was too nervous and sat it out. I was kicking myself when it went to 27 in a couple months, and then hit 80 at the height...

I bought this time at 17 and again at 16 and have been kicking myself for the last few months, although I really wanted to double-down at 11.50 and didn't.

Darn emotions, always getting in the way of things. I'm super considering putting some money into Sony right now, as it seems like they are in the same spot N was right before the Wii. Lots of hype, people will be scrambling to get some with the launch over-demand, the market will probably over-estimate that as long-term demand, and they'll likely shoot up just like Nintendo did that christmas season.

One of my major pet peeves with games, truegaming and any other "serious" window into the community; for all the quality discussion that we can generate about games themselves, we are completely oblivious to the actual business aspect of the industry.

The OP article is dumb. The comments at "dualshockers" are dumb and most of the comments here are dumb. Why is this the second topmost submission on games?